Nice photos! Proving once again that it is the operator, not the equipment, that rules in the end.

Now, you owe it to those girls to take the money you saved by buying the M instead of another DSLR and get them each a cheeseburger. They all look like they could use it.

Completely agree to both points.

Was this a shoot for a warning ad against anorexia? Or was it for a remake of Schindler's List with a more authentic looking cast?

One thing is for certain, taking pictures of anorexic models is very popular with readers on canonrumors - over 1500 downloads on most of the images. So to use that metric as a basis point, the girls' decision to look anorexic is a winner, so how can you blame them?

As much as most people want to say they're too skinny, each girl has contracts and earns $100,000 (lowest) to $1 million a year. If I can make that much money by being skinny, you bet your ass that I will eat salad and hit the gym everyday. Not to mention, they date famous athletes, actors, producers, etc. (I know for a fact one of the models in the sample photos used to be Kobe's mistress).

Nice photos! Proving once again that it is the operator, not the equipment, that rules in the end.

Now, you owe it to those girls to take the money you saved by buying the M instead of another DSLR and get them each a cheeseburger. They all look like they could use it.

Completely agree to both points.

Was this a shoot for a warning ad against anorexia? Or was it for a remake of Schindler's List with a more authentic looking cast?

One thing is for certain, taking pictures of anorexic models is very popular with readers on canonrumors - over 1500 downloads on most of the images. So to use that metric as a basis point, the girls' decision to look anorexic is a winner, so how can you blame them?

They're not anorexic. You haven't actually seen or known an anorexic girl if you think so.

They are definitely thin/petite. And yes, most men either like that, or it's within the range of what they like.

Nice photos! Proving once again that it is the operator, not the equipment, that rules in the end.

Now, you owe it to those girls to take the money you saved by buying the M instead of another DSLR and get them each a cheeseburger. They all look like they could use it.

Completely agree to both points.

Was this a shoot for a warning ad against anorexia? Or was it for a remake of Schindler's List with a more authentic looking cast?

One thing is for certain, taking pictures of anorexic models is very popular with readers on canonrumors - over 1500 downloads on most of the images. So to use that metric as a basis point, the girls' decision to look anorexic is a winner, so how can you blame them?

They're not anorexic. You haven't actually seen or known an anorexic girl if you think so.

They are definitely thin/petite. And yes, most men either like that, or it's within the range of what they like.

None of them look like they could carry my cedar-canvas canoe over a 5K portage..... Not interested.....

Honestly, I do not like them. Uneven lighting, some a bit dull, some of the faces too dark. Shots like those, taken with professional lighting should shine. Weird artifacts in #3, the composition and the wide angle in #4 are questionable. #7 and #8 are really good, and the latter is my favorite. Still, technically, it is a bit dull.

This is just an honest opinion, I have no intention to offend you.

EDIT: I just watched the movie clip, I see where the "artifacts" are coming from (bubbles?). They look good in the movie but not so good in the stills.

Honestly, I do not like them. Uneven lighting, some a bit dull, some of the faces too dark. Shots like those, taken with professional lighting should shine. Weird artifacts in #3, the composition and the wide angle in #4 are questionable. #7 and #8 are really good, and the latter is my favorite. Still, technically, it is a bit dull.

This is just an honest opinion, I have no intention to offend you.

No offense taken, I know exactly what you mean about the lighting. In my defense this shoot was for a promo video with no stills in mind, these are more "behind-the-scenes" type of photos I did in the middle of the shoot, they weren't post processed either. I would have done it way differently if it was supposed to be a group photoshoot. The weird artifacts in #3 are bubbles from a bubble machine.

At no time did anyone ask for a critique. The original poster was trying to just show the potential of the eos m. You may have not meant to hurt anyone but commenting on simple sample photos from work is too harsh. Now where they were published in print ad or commercialized then one has reason to comment. I find them good examples of the strengths of the eos m. A little camera that still amazes me with just how good images it captures.

At no time did anyone ask for a critique. The original poster was trying to just show the potential of the eos m. You may have not meant to hurt anyone but commenting on simple sample photos from work is too harsh. Now where they were published in print ad or commercialized then one has reason to comment. I find them good examples of the strengths of the eos m. A little camera that still amazes me with just how good images it captures.

Speaking about the technical IQ only, it is what you can expect from a crop camera and the kit lens. Not bad at all, but... something is not there. No surprises here, and seeing how the M works in great lighting is very useful, actually.

Somehow People seem to be scared to use the M for a paid Job with famous customers.When the world was about a quarter of a century younger I used a EOS 620 with some crapy first generation EF lenses for shots of this kind. Not the camera, not the lenses could stand a comparison to what the M can bring to the field... SO why be afraid?